|
Author
|
Topic: Constellation cancelled: NASA's new approach
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-22-2010 11:03 AM
   
NASA press release NASA FY2011 Budget Summary Materials Posted To NASA.GovNASA published its Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Estimates on Monday, providing more information about the president's plan for the agency's future. The material highlights spending plans for program elements for each of the agency's mission directorates, further defining the budget request unveiled Feb. 1. The information provides significant additional detail on the new programs, their goals, and the rationales for NASA's new direction in human space exploration. The 2011 budget proposal supports bold and ambitious space initiatives that invest in American ingenuity, develop more innovative technologies, foster new industries, strengthen international partnerships, and increase our understanding of the Earth, our solar system, and the universe beyond -- all to propel the agency on a new journey of innovation and discovery. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-22-2010 04:45 PM
From FY '11, Mission Directorate: Exploration Systems, Theme: Constellation Transition "This cancellation effort represents a fundamental strategic shift from a large, contract oversight and mission operations program to a more diverse development, demonstration, and precursor focus that will require significant realignment across the Agency. (my highlighting) Funny, because that's what I thought the new plan meant when I first read it. It was what I still thought when I re-read the more upbeat version. So it's nice to see it finally in black and white. NASA has cancelled it's manned exploration mission operations program to become an R&D think tank. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-22-2010 05:12 PM
It is clear there will be no American manned spacecraft for a minimum of 10 years, probably more. That would be after the last shuttle flights. Sub-orbital joy rides don't count. Just think how long it takes to bring a new airliner to test flight status. Has anybody cut metal on a manned orbital vehicle? |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-22-2010 05:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by bobzz:
It is clear there will be no American manned spacecraft for a minimum of 10 years, probably more.
I don't believe it is "clear". In fact, it's conjecture and remarks like that which have polarised this whole debate. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-22-2010 06:07 PM
I too am tired of the partisan arguments in this thread. But I disagree that it is arrogant or condescending to note that anyone who claims Obama has had NO accomplishments in the last year is partisan. PolitiFact.com has documented 96 campaign promises that he has kept.I'm disappointed that the funding increase for the NASA budget proposed by Obama is not higher. I think it's risky to rely on the commercial sector for LEO, but I disagree that it is irresponsible. Given enough money, I'd like both private and public sector access to LEO, but I believe Obama is probably correct in thinking that it's unrealistic to expect that much extra money. Those who are still cheerleading for Constellation appear to be ignoring the fact that at current levels, the Augustine Commission found that Ares I was unlikely to deliver a crew to LEO until 2017-2019. Given the continued project delays, it wouldn't surprise me to have it turn out later than that, if Constellation is continued. As has been acknowledged even among his detractors, it wasn't Obama who cancelled the Shuttle. Even with Ares I, there could easily have been a 10-year gap in NASA returning humans to LEO. And regardless of the potential success of Ares I and the Orion crew vehicle, the outlook for getting beyond LEO with the Constellation project was looking pretty dim. According to the Augustine Commission, the commercial sector can get us back to LEO first. I hope they're right. Seeing photos of the Falcon 9 stack at the Cape is certainly an inspiring sight. I don't consider myself to be overly optimistic, but I do see a lot of potential in the proposed plan. I'd like to see us make it work. I'd like to see us on Mars by the 2030s (if I live that long), and I am actually excited by some of the unmanned demonstration projects proposed for the Moon. I have no problem with unbiased arguments that the plan for NASA should be changed. Until Congress makes the final decision, all options are still on the table, as far as I'm concerned. But if Congress approves the President's plan, or some variation of it, I hope that we space enthusiasts will do all we can to make it work. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-22-2010 06:16 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
PolitiFact.com has documented 96 campaign promises that he has kept.
96 of some 500 - ironically it is that same site which reports promise number 339 (Support human mission to the moon by 2020) as Broken! |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-22-2010 06:22 PM
96 is still greater than 0. And they list 272 of those 500 as being in the works. The Augustine Commission found that no one could get back to the moon by 2020. Perhaps it is unfair to consider acknowledgment of this fact to be a broken promise. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 02-22-2010 06:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
The Augustine Commission found that no one could get back to the moon by 2020.
And the fact that we were able to do it in less then 10 years previously is a figment of our collective imaginations? |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-22-2010 06:27 PM
Did you read about the "Perfect Storm?" And as I noted previously, the Apollo program took 10 years to get us there in a Volkswagen. Constellation was trying to get us there in a Cadillac. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3604
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:10 PM
I have been fascinated by space exploration all my life, but I would be a liar if I said I believed that this sort of stuff is going to produce the slightest glint in the eye of the average citizen. Of any country. I am reminded of a recent quote by a US Senator who cares about space: this is the death-march of the U.S. space programme. It's incredibly sad. Most of you reading this will have no idea just how sad it makes me feel, and I'm not even American. Or to put it a little more succinctly: no Buck Rogers, eventually no bucks. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
...it's conjecture and remarks like that which have polarised this whole debate.
I see. So only what's verbatim in the plan is subject to debate... nothing to read between the lines whatsoever. Well, I wouldn't recommend going through life that way, but that's an individual choice.
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I disagree that it is arrogant or condescending to note that anyone who claims Obama has had NO accomplishments in the last year is partisan. PolitiFact.com has documented 96 campaign promises that he has kept.
If you must, please quote me accurately... I never used the word arrogant, or the word condescending in the context you claim. And I never claimed NO accomplishments. I said no noteworthy accomplishments. (By the way, keeping a campaign promise isn't an accomplishment... well, maybe for some politicians...). Which of those 96 promises kept would you care to tout as a noteworthy accomplishment? My point is, if it's partisan to point out Obama hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy, let the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek know they're also partisan, because they've concluded pretty much the same, as has anyone reading the news in a non-partisan fashion. If there's been polarization here perhaps it's due to throwing around charges about other cS posters with little or no basis for doing so. I've studiously tried to avoid that... and it'd be nice if others tried as hard to reciprocate. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:42 PM
Sad, but the budget confirms Constellation is kaput (unless Congress forces changes).The reasoning? Perhaps this... This country needs a heavy lift vehicle to take us to the moon, Mars and beyond. So we will cancel the heavy-lift vehicle project that's been being worked on to take us to the moon, Mars and beyond, and in which we've already invested billions... and in it's place we will begin an entirely new project to provide a heavy-lift vehicle to take us, someday, to places like the moon, Mars and beyond. In the meantime here are some nice miniature silk Chinese, Russian, Indian and Japanese flags to send to these nations' astronaut offices for autographs. If Constellation stays dead so too will be my interest in American space efforts going forward... at least until I feel there's a leadership architecture in place that again understands American exceptionalism and the crucial role our space program plays in that. |
cjh5801
Member Posts: 189
From: Lacey
Registered: Jun 2009
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
If you must, please quote me accurately... I never used the word arrogant, or the word condescending in the context you claim.
I don't recall quoting you at all in that post, though I certainly considered you among the partisan posters -- as you yourself have acknowledged. quote:
Originally posted by chet:
My point is, if it's partisan to point out Obama hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy, let the New York Times, the Washington Post, Time and Newsweek know they're also partisan, because they've concluded pretty much the same, as has anyone reading the news in a non-partisan fashion.
And I disagree with this assessment. The sources you've cited have all acknowledged a number of noteworthy accomplishments, which it would be pointless to go into here. I only respond to this because I strongly disagree that your analysis is non-partisan.I'm all for keeping this a friendly discussion, and I think the plan is worthy of discussion. Not outright dismissal based on assumptions and allegations. |
bobzz
Member Posts: 100
From: Batavia, Illinois
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:49 PM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I don't believe it is "clear". In fact, it's conjecture...
Sorry... I believe it is FAR more conjecture to think we will have a private American spacecraft delivering astronauts to LEO in ten years. As long as the Russians will sell us seats in their tried and true decades old cannonball at a cheap fare, there will be no competition. How can a private company compete with a country's mature vehicle unless we are willing to fund it at a loss. (Orion) National pride will be the only reason we will pay a higher "taxi fare" to space. |
chet
Member Posts: 1543
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 02-22-2010 07:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
I'm all for keeping this a friendly discussion, and I think the plan is worthy of discussion. Not outright dismissal based on assumptions and allegations.
You are correct, I did claim to be partisan, but that is not to say I think myself incapable of arguing a point in an objective way. I have tried to do that (perhaps poorly, but I have tried).Anyway, ready and willing to give it a fresh go (arguing, er, I mean debating!....) |
AstronautBrian
Member Posts: 310
From: Louisiana
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 02-22-2010 10:13 PM
NASA has been the beaten red-headed stepchild of the government even before the end of Apollo. After having some time to think about it, I guess what I am scared about is that the politicans have used this as an oppurtunity to finally make the "problem" of manned spaceflight "go away." As Blackarrow said above, no buck rogers, no bucks.I'm worried that by killing off Constellation, and not having a clear goal or destination, that the politicians hope that the American people will just forget about the whole thing, and in 2020 when the ISS is deorbited, Congress can throw up their hands and say well, that's it. I'm worried that they hope the billions NASA will invest in new technology for future spaceflight will end up just planning itself into oblivion. I'm worried that Congress doesn't care if human commerical spaceflight succeeds or not. If it doesn't work out, oh well - we will just count on the Russians to hold us out until 2020. If it does work, great! We can tax it! It is not just Obama, it is all of the politicians. One can probably count on one hand the number of Congress critters that actually care and understand the importance of human spaceflight. I just have this gut feeling that this is a bad decision. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 02-22-2010 11:48 PM
I fell the same way you do. That's why we have to get the word out. I've told my students, plus my friends and family on my email list. I've also started writing letters to certain members of Congress. If enough of us get involved, maybe, just maybe, we can get some change. And if nothing comes of it, well we went down swinging. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cjh5801:
The Augustine Commission found that no one could get back to the moon by 2020.
True. But the Vision for Space Exploration was initiated in 2004 and had been underfunded from day 1. So the problem may well be the 2020 deadline, not the ability for the US to land a man on the Moon. Make the "deadline" 2026, starting with FY11 (plus the already invested billions), in 15 years, the US cannot land a man on the Moon (or at least have a new crewed vehicle, a heavy lift launcher, and a lunar lander)? I find it hard to believe. Much like the ISS budget which is fixed at $2 billion/year, the same could be applied to Constellation (or Man on the Moon-MOM!), shifting the $6 billion yearly shuttle budget (+ additional budget increases) to such program, multiplied by 15, that's close to $100 billion dollars. Can't be done?
|
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
NASA has cancelled it's manned exploration mission operations program to become an R&D think tank.
That's the feeling I got while reading the other posts regarding the FY11 budget. I wonder who will be interested in what NASA does, beginning next year. Even with the shuttle and the ISS, media attention is low. Yet when Ares 1-X was about to fly even CNBC (the anti-fat-government-let's reduce taxes folks) had a live feed on the launch (ok it was scrubbed but that's not the point-  ). If NASA has nothing to show for (on TV) during the upcoming years (test vehicles for example), I fear that people might end up believing that NASA doesn't exist anymore. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2486
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 02-23-2010 03:08 AM
I have recently stumbled upon this quote from Robert Goddard, who knew a thing or three about rockets, that is extremely pertinent to this discussion -
"When old dreams die, new ones come to take their place. God pity a one-dream man" |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-23-2010 04:52 AM
"It is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this state of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested"JFK at Rice University, choosing to go to the moon. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 05:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
So we will cancel the heavy-lift vehicle project
Is this the non-existent Ares V you refer to? Then you must be forgetting the already proven and versatile Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy, which NASA should have utilised and thereby cut the gap. I'm positive Obama would not have shutdown Constellation if either HLLV was man-rated to launch the Orion CEV as it was orginal designed (that's conjecture based upon plausibility). It was the inferior Ares I which resulted in Orion being pared down and eliminated altogether (unfortunately). The vocal critics of Obama's proposal should be asking why ATK was selected as the prime contractor for Constellation's fleet of rockets? |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-23-2010 09:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
Then you must be forgetting the already proven and versatile Atlas V and Delta IV Heavy, which NASA should have utilised and thereby cut the gap.
There is no Atlas V Heavy. And I don't think that you can have those in the same category, especially in terms of pounds/kg to LEO. quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
The vocal critics of Obama's proposal should be asking why ATK was selected as the prime contractor for Constellation's fleet of rockets?
The argument that I had heard was to keep open the production line of solid-based fuel (which the military uses, or might use) but I don't know if that argument is still valid. Also, the idea of building a vehicle with existing hardware and technological know-how could have reduced the cost of developing a new vehicle from scratch (which is apparently what will happen with the FY11 budget). |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 02-23-2010 09:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
So we will cancel the heavy-lift vehicle project that's been being worked on to take us to the moon, Mars and beyond, and in which we've already invested billions...
Which is kind of ironic because Bolden stated in his "press conference" that everybody needed a heavy lift vehicle. Go figure. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 09:40 AM
Ok... you believe heavy lift exists (Delta, etc.). You believe Constellation would not work. You believe there was no way the US could make it back to the moon in only 10 years. You believe commercial will step up and have an operational craft in a few years.Let's look at the only example we have: Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipOne. They flew in 2004, almost six years ago. All they did was build a high altitude airplane and it took a few years to get there. They stated at that time that they expected to start flying "tourists" in about a year. It's now been almost six... no flights, and while I know and hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, they have had a vehicle roll out but no test flights to date. So I would guess they are looking at a minimum of seven years after SpaceshipOne (a proof of concept flight of sorts) before making their first commercial flight of a high altitude airplane with a good chance of it being eight years. Now the President's plan will require a commercial company to design, build, and test a man rated launch vehicle (or man rate an existing vehicle), a spacecraft with all it's subsystems (software and hardware), launch facilities, recovery facilities, vehicle processing facilities, launch processing software, etc. all for a vehicle that is at a minimum two orders of magnitude more difficult to build and fly than Virgin Galactic's, do it soon and on their dime (remember, it's commercial) and make a profit (again, it's commercial). Supporters of President Obama's NASA... do you really believe this will happen? I for one do not. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:07 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Let's look at the only example we have: Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipOne. They flew in 2004, almost six years ago. All they did was build a high altitude airplane and it took a few years to get there. They stated at that time that they expected to start flying "tourists" in about a year.
Can you find a citation for the "one year"? When SpaceShipOne flew, built by Scaled Composites, Virgin Galactic did not exist. It was because of SpaceShipOne's three successful flights that Virgin Galactic was founded and they began funding the construction of SpaceShipTwo, which, to my knowledge, they have always said would take several years to build and test before passenger flights began. They are on schedule now to begin flight tests this year and a first passenger flight in 2011.But really, Virgin Galactic/SpaceShipTwo is not the best example to point to: SpaceX with its Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft (designed from the start to carry both cargo and crew) is far more applicable. Falcon 9 stands on its launch pad at Cape Canaveral right now, preparing for the final tests before its first launch with a boilerplate Dragon (think Ares I-X, but actually reaching space). SpaceX contends it will be ready to fly crew three years after being given the go by NASA, at a per seat cost at more than half than what the Russians are charging. Meanwhile Orbital is building its Taurus launch vehicle and Cygnus cargo carrier, the latter the company plans to adapt to crew services on a similar timescale as SpaceX. SpaceX and Orbital, which both have cargo service contracts with NASA will have their first flights to the ISS over the next couple of years. NASA's schedule is to have one or more crew services in operation by 2015 in part to allow the time for safety reviews before any NASA astronaut rides on them to the International Space Station. (It is also probably prudent to point out that the original COTS contract was not open to the more traditional aerospace companies and the crew services contract will be, so the Boeings and Lockheed Martins of the world will be taking part and their ability to invest into such projects is greater.) |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Supporters of President Obama's NASA... do you really believe this will happen?
Being the eternal optimist, it has every chance of being successful as long as there is no political interference. I get the impression (rightly or wrongly) you want the status quo preserved - the same ole NASA as the one led by O'Keefe and Griffin. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:26 AM
For me personally, even if a commercial company flies by 2014 - so what? Constellation included LEO merely as step in a program leading straight back into deep-space manned exploration. Once SpaceX have run a few astronauts up to the ISS and back the net result will be a few hundred million less dollars being spent in Russia and then - what?NASA's bold FY '11 budget to the rescue! First-Stage Launch Propulsion: NASA’s efforts in this area will focus on development of a U.S. core stage hydrocarbon engine that would be suitable for use in a future heavy-lift rocket or as the first stage of a future launch vehicle ...this project is intended to result in a fully operational engine by the end of this decade. A future heavy lift rocket... 1961-1969 NASA delivered a heavy lift rocket AND a successful manned moon program. 2011 to 2019 NASA plans to deliver an engine. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Matt T:
A future heavy lift rocket... 1961-1969 NASA delivered a heavy lift rocket AND a successful manned moon program.
Yes, but the choice is not between Apollo and the President's plan, it is between Constellation and the President's plan, and the earlier would not deliver a heavy-lift capability much before (if at all) this new plan aims to do so (mid-2020s).Constellation was not Apollo (not even on steroids) and so comparing the new plan to Apollo is equally inappropriate. Apollo took place because of a unique alignment of national and international political events that won't soon be repeated. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Constellation was not Apollo (not even on steroids) and so comparing the new plan to Apollo is equally inappropriate. Apollo took place because of a unique alignment of national and international political events that won't soon be repeated.
I view this position as specious; the geopolitical situation helped to catalyze a decision to resource Apollo because it was seized on by effective leadership. The U.S. is no less technically capable of reinitializing a return to the Moon within 10 years today, what is lacking is the leadership required to coalesce public support for such an action. |
WAWalsh
Member Posts: 809
From: Cortlandt Manor, NY
Registered: May 2000
|
posted 02-23-2010 10:46 AM
Not sure where it fits in here (and I have not gone through all of the posts), but hasn't the DOD space-related budget exceeded NASA's for the past decade. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
public support for such an action.
Opinion polls suggest that the public did not support funding Apollo and at the time of his death, President Kennedy was looking for a way to cancel, or at least significantly delay, the moon landing. His death, coupled by Johnson's own political aspirations, together with the immediate perceived need to not be further upstaged by the Soviet Union, and the uniqueness of the activity being "new" were necessary to keep Apollo moving forward.Now, we can debate trumped up new space race claims embraced by the space community desperate to reclaim the political landscape that existed for Apollo, or we can try to consider what best works in the reality of today, where no Apollo-level funding project would pass through Congress, let alone gain public support (who largely thinks NASA receives too much money as it is, let alone considers the Moon as having "been there, done that"). |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 5246
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:17 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Now, we can debate trumped up new space race claims embraced by the space community desperate to reclaim the political landscape that existed for Apollo, or we can try to consider what best works in the reality of today,
The trigger need not be geo-political. Properly leveraged, the economic crisis facing the US now can serve as the same catalyst provided by the space-race of the 60's. The risk to the country is just as great. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:19 AM
I don't see a commitment to a heavy lift vehicle anywhere in this budget - that's one of the main difference between Constellation and this new plan. NASA is being prevented from following a path (no matter how slowly due to under-funding) that categorically led somewhere.Instead NASA returns to imagineering new technologies and projects that it may or may not actually ever use or undertake. To take an example that I can talk about with minimal use of my hat  - spacesuits. There have been two or three generations of advanced planetary exploration suits developed since the moon landings and now NASA is set to throw more money at more spacesuit R&D without the slightest plausible program in place to make use of the end technology before it too becomes obsolete in it's turn. This is the fundamental flaw of developing new technologies without an immediate end application, they become simply a make-work. There is an overly familiar feel to several of the proposed 'new' technologies on the list. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:21 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Properly leveraged, the economic crisis facing the US now can serve as the same catalyst provided by the space-race of the 60's.
I agree. I think that the Moon could be sold as a economy-driving jobs program, if not also a potential energy solution (not He3 but rather solar farming) but that was not what Constellation was sold as to the public. In fact, I think we'll see some of those same justifications being cited as commercial services push past low Earth orbit sooner rather than later. Of course, a government-run Mars program could also be used for the same purposes but there are technological issues we need to overcome first and which can be addressed with a series of smaller projects in the short interim. |
Michael Davis
Member Posts: 559
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic
The U.S. is no less technically capable of reinitializing a return to the Moon within 10 years today, what is lacking is the leadership required to coalesce public support for such an action.
At its height Apollo was consuming 5.5% of the Federal Budget. That's similar to the Manhattan Project. Are you actually saying that in the midst of two wars, a 10% unemployment rate, and a terrible economic situation the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, that a president should make a return to the moon one of the highest priorities for the nation?For all of the reasons listed in the many posts before, Apollo was in fact special and something that won't be repeated. I feel fortunate to remember each of its missions because I realize now that I was witnessing a special moment in world history. That's also why I can name every crewmember that flew on one of those missions, but can't name a single person on ISS at the moment. That's also why I collect flown items from Apollo, but not the Shuttle program. Blaming politicians for not being able to recapture that moment seems just pointless to me. I fear that much of the support for Constellation was about trying to relive our youths, or to let our children experience the same memories of going to the moon that we hold. It did not seem to be about developing the best policy for a human space program. It also did not seem to be about setting realistic goals and properly funding them. There were posts on cS years ago questioning the Ares 1 design. As I recall John Young was a vocal critic of the design and he was joined by many experts with similar opinions. And once again, there was never viable funding to reach the stated goals of the entire project. To push forward just so we can take pride in "actually cutting metal" would seem irresponsible. Far better in my opinion to stop, figure out what is politically and financially achievable, and only then proceed. |
Matt T
Member Posts: 1372
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Davis:
Are you actually saying that in the midst of two wars, a 10% unemployment rate, and a terrible economic situation the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression, that a president should make a return to the moon one of the highest priorities for the nation?
In the context suggested above (an FDR-style New Deal employment program) then why not? A national priority that requires 5% of the entire budget is clearly out of the question - but a properly funded Constellation that consumes no more than 2 or 3% of even the defence budget alone strikes me as a fairly rational rallying point for job creation and aspirational motivation. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 11:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
SpaceX contends it will be ready to fly crew three years after being given the go by NASA.
What's stopping them? Could it be that they expect NASA to pay for it, "it" being the billions of dollars in development costs, etc? I thought this is "commercial" manned spaceflight. SpaceX must depend upon NASA funding almost all of their manned spaceflight work to exist. If they can fly for half the cost of Soviet vehicles, a mature spacecraft with no development costs and built using low labor cost by Western standards and with a program run by engineers making 1/10 their American counterparts, SpaceX would easily corner the world market. So again, what's stopping them? Virgin Galactic exists as an extension of Scaled Composites. To say they did not exist 'till recently is technically true...but in reality it is nothing more than a name change brought about by Virgin's investment in Scaled Composites. To try and make it look like their (Virgin Galactic's) craft is from a company that has only been around for a couple of years is less than honest. Media reports were full of statements from Scaled Composites at the time of Spaceship One flight that they would be flying tourists in about a year. Even if you do not believe such statements were made (and they were), it's still 2004 to 2010 and no flights...and they have been working all during this time period. And why would you not believe such statements? Apparently off-the-cuff remarks by some that the US is on a path to Mars are taken as "gospel" even if the US has no plan to get there, no vehicles to get there, and no money to build a LEO vehicle much less the massive infastructure required for a manned flight to Mars. Three billion dollars more a year would not even begin to start to pay for a trip to Mars, and NASA cannot get this "small" amount extra. Falcon 9? It has not even logged ONE flight...and it is well behind schedule too. How many times did they launch Falcon One before they had a successful flight? More to the point now, how much calendar time did it take for them to have ONE flight? There can never be an agrument here if one insists on citing vehicles that have never flown or companies that have never developed any advanced flying vehicle of any type. There was a company about a year ago that claimed they would be operating orbiting hotels by 2012. Air and Space magazine if full of reports over the last two decades of companies that were going to launch manned spacecraft in a couple of years. Remember all the companies that were going to win the X-Prize? All the vehicles they were building? Where are they now? The fiction here is not only that there are companies that can build cheap spacecraft if they would only be allowed to do so, it is also that there is a commercial manned spaceflight market. The error is betting everything on something that does not exist. May they have the best of luck, because the President's bad policy is placing the US in a very difficult position. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
What's stopping them?
Nothing is stopping them: SpaceX is building Falcon and Dragon with or without NASA. That Falcon 9 is standing on the pad right now is mostly without NASA funds. Falcon 1 flew four times, all self-funded, and it took only three flights to be successful. SpaceX plans to fly Falcon 9 a few times before attempting cargo and then fly cargo a dozen times (at least) before a crew. And again, NASA is providing some of the funding based on milestones met, but SpaceX is putting up the bulk of the upfront development costs. Of course, if you insist on putting faith only in vehicles that exist, i.e. have flown, then you really can't have faith in Constellation either: by your definition, Ares I, certainly Ares V, and Orion do not exist. As far as Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic, they are in fact two separate companies. Virgin has contracted Scaled, now a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman, to build SpaceShipTwo. When SpaceShipOne was built, there was no Virgin Galactic. I interviewed Burt Rutan back when SpaceShipOne flew, and I had a meeting with him about flying tourists several years before SpaceShipOne was even a figment of his imagination (his focus then was on Proteus). Never did he say that he could fly passengers a year after a test flight, nor did he say that SpaceShipOne was capable of tourist flights. Maybe he said so later, or maybe he was misquoted or maybe you are innocently misremembering what you read, but as someone who has both worked in and covered the emerging space tourism market closely over the past 15 years, I find it hard to believe that such claims were made by Scaled. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 02-23-2010 12:17 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Of course, if you insist on putting faith only in vehicles that exist, i.e. have flown, then you really can't have faith in Constellation either: by your definition, Ares I, certainly Ares V, and Orion do not exist.
I believe the planned "builder" of these craft, NASA, has a record of spacecraft design, fabrication, and operation.If you want to discredit my memory, 2004 to 2010 and no Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic flight cannot be debated... and for only a high altitude aircraft. |
Topic Closed
advertisement